Case law

Jones v. United States

828 A.2d 169 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2003

While such concerns about “bad facts” might fall within the privilege if they were expressed in a communication within a clearly established attorney-client relationship, we conclude, like the trial court, that appellant … has committed certain conduct beyond a reasonable doubt serves a dual purpose — to convict that offender of the crime and to establish the qualifying factor.”

Glenn v. Mindell

74 A.2d 835 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1950

Clearly then, the testimony on the subject, if credited, was sufficient to establish proper service of the notice. … A notice to quit is not court process 16 and' its delivery may be established just like the delivery of any other paper.

LCP, Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

499 A.2d 897 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1985

Concluding that Patton’s “does not qualify as appropriate for the reissuance” of an ABC license, the Board ordered the establishment’s license surrendered to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division by June 22, 1984. … A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others. Village of Hoffman Estates v.

Singer v. District of Columbia Board of Medicine

631 A.2d 1232 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1993

The Board, exercising its discretion, clearly analyzed whether 17 DCMR § 4811 could properly be considered a “reciprocity” provision and concluded that petitioner failed to establish his entitlement to certification by reciprocity … for the same reasons he did not establish his entitlement to waiver of the exam requirement.

Sorrells v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros., Miller & Rhoads, Inc.

565 A.2d 285 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1989

The evidence in this case, however, whatever else it may prove, does not establish a violation of the Human Rights Act; i.e., it does not show that Mrs. … It serves no purpose to immunize supervisory employees for their tortious conduct when they are neither parties to the contract between other employees and their common employer, nor empowered by the employer to act as its

Gotay v. United States

805 A.2d 944 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2002

"The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner.” Bozza v. … Although subsection (c) does state that these sums are to be "collected as fines,” it does not call them fines; moreover, fines are generally prescribed in the statutes that define particular crimes and establish the penalties

Washington v. United States

619 A.2d 30 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

We have also held that usability can be established through opinion evidence, ordinarily from experienced police officers qualified as expert witnesses on the subject, that the controlled substance is a usable amount. … For example, the controlled substance in question here was clearly measurable—the chemist testified that the cocaine was in rock form, weighed 7.233 grams, was packaged in fourteen separate ziplock bags, and was 92 percent

Carter v. United States

643 A.2d 348 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1994

United States, 366 A.2d 781 (D.C.1976) establishes that a probation revocation hearing is not a “criminal prosecution” in which immunized testimony may not be considered. In Minnesota v. … , The Sixth Amendment Right to Have Use Immunity Granted to Defense Witnesses, 91 Harv.L.Rev. 1266 (1978) (cited in daggers, supra, 482 A.2d at 795 n. 7). .

United States v. Sell

487 A.2d 225 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 1985

The government appeals, asserting that although the standard is correct as expressed, the trial judge’s conclusion is clearly wrong. … Sometime after March 4, 1981, the government granted Frontuto transactional immunity for her crimes in sodomizing appellee and her customer.

Clarke v. United States

943 A.2d 555 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2008

In each decision, we dealt with Crawford error that had not been objected to on constitutional grounds, but “where the law at the time of trial was settled [in favor of admission of the disputed evidence] and clearly contrary … That analogy stretches too far, in our view. 4 .The trial judge, of course, made no findings as to whether the utterance qualified as excited or spontaneous, see generally Reyes v.

Nwaneri v. Sandidge

931 A.2d 466 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 2007

Instead, while being qualified as an expert, Dr. … Woratyla was indeed qualified to meet the first threshold requirement to be qualified as an expert witness.

Eldridge v. D.C. DHS

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2021

Prior to their terminations, petitioners qualified for Medicaid benefits under this category in connection with their participation in a Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waiver program established by the District … “When, as here, the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly in order.” Id. at 881 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

RUTLAND COURT OWNERS, INC. v. Taylor

997 A.2d 706 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2010

Kriegsfeld, 884 A.2d 1109 (D.C.2005), to conclude that Taylor suffered from a qualified disability that the Board was aware of based on its interactions with him and the involvement of his caseworker. … Under Douglas , there is “no specific diagnosis” needed to establish a disability under the Fair Housing Act. Id. at 1131 . At trial, the court credited the testimony of Dr.

Mason v. District of Columbia

395 A.2d 399 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1978

. § 8101 et seq. (1970), establishes under the Secretary of Labor a program of workmen’s compensation for government employees injured in work-related accidents. Reep v. United States, 557 F.2d 204, 207 (9th Cir. 1977). … She contends that in several respects her case clearly falls outside the purview of FECA so that there exists no substantial question of FECA coverage for the Secretary to address.

Smith v. Whitehead

436 A.2d 339 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1982

Belief in the Lawfulness of their Actions Police officers acting in the scope of their employment are protected by a qualified immunity. In Wade v. … Johnson, D.C.App., 389 A.2d 781 (1978) (en banc), as justification for their assertion that because they “clearly believe that they were legally compelled to obey their superior’s orders,” an award of punitive damages was

Brown v. United States

409 A.2d 1093 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1979

However, before evidence of the guilt of another can be deemed relevant and thereby admissible, the evidence must clearly link that other person to the commission of the crime. See, e. g., State v. … Relevancy means that the evidence offered will tend to establish a material proposition in the case. See McCormick, Evidence § 185 (1972 ed.).

United States ex rel. Early v. Richards

35 App. D.C. 540 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1910

In other words, the right conferred by the license is a qualified, and not an absolute, right.” … Then what did the vote decide % Clearly, not that the act should be a law or not be, for the law already existed. Indeed, it was not delegated to the people to decide anything.

Matter of Smith

403 A.2d 296 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1979

In disbarring Ruffalo, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that “one who believes that it is proper to employ and pay another to work against the interests of his regular employer is not qualified to be a member of the Ohio … Ruffalo defended himself from the charge that he'had employed Orlando to solicit clients — which was clearly proscribed — by arguing that he had employed Orlando only to investigate pending cases.

Cafritz Co. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission

615 A.2d 222 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1992

qualify as capital improvements, then a major renovation, that includes the installation of new elevators and a complete new building heating system, would qualify as well. … This provision clearly anticipates and expects that approved rent increases may be collected pending appeal.

Kim Long Ko v. United States

694 A.2d 73 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 8, 1997

The Interpreter Act also establishes an "Office of Interpreter Services" (now the OCIS), which is required, inter alia, to establish standards and qualifications for interpreters, to maintain a current list of qualified interpreters … Section 31-2711(b)(6) states, clearly, "[t]he Office [of Interpreter Services] shall pay for the salaries, fees, expenses, and costs incident to providing interpreter services as set forth in § 31-2712."